[Diggory Laycock]

Why won't Apple licence their DRM?

Is it because it's technically difficult?

i.e. If Apple control the system entirely, then they can issue crack-breaking updates rapidly.

Is it because allowing others into the system would make it weaker? i.e. Steve Jobs can't control engineers from other companies as easily as he can his own - what happens when technical info on how the system works is leaked by an engineer from another company.

Is it because the system is actually quite weak? i.e. security through obscurity.

Is it because SJ wants to retain control to maximise profits? i.e. The Mac OS circa the mod-ninties all over again.


Whatever the reason - I'm oddly beginning to agree with that idiot guy from Real who cracked the DRM after Apple refused to licence the tech - Apple needs to start licensing FairPlay, because there's a DRM war coming...

--------

The DRM players so far:

Windows Media - has a natural advantage - due to being automatically installed on all Windows machines (except for a very few in the EU.)

WMP DRM is about to get a massive boost in that fact the the xBox 360 is about to become very big - and guess what it likes WMP. It will have a years advantage over the PS3 and many people will buy it instead of the PS3, or as well as the PS3 due to that lead (two years advantage if you're in Europe - but that's a rant for another thread.) The x360 is the media Trojan horse that everyone thought the xBox was going to be - people will buy it for games, and find that the media functions that the get 'for free' are surprisingly useful. It connects to MS Window Media Center.

MS Licence WMP DRM - Despite their clever marketing of it as "Plays for Sure" - it hasn't had as much traction in media sales as FairPlay. It has had some success in hardware players.


----

Apple's FairPlay.

Of course, we're all going to be rather biased here - but let's try and think of it in a dispassionate way:

FP is the leader in the media sales market - most people who buy music online use iTMS and so have an investment in FP DRM'ed media.

However - FP DRM'ed media only plays on Apple Products (or a Windows machine with QuickTime and iTunes installed.) All the music you've bought from iTMS will not play in your car stereo (unless though an iPod) - will not play on a PS3 - will not play on a Linux machine - will not play on an xBox 360. It will not play on any device you choose to put on your top of your TV.

Before you reply "Oh, Apple will release a set-top box/Airport Express for video" - think about it - why should we be restricted to Apple Hardware - Apple has become the Microsoft of Media. A closed market where you can only buy Apple hardware to play your music/videos is not a good market. This is exactly the kind of thing we've been angry with MS about for the last 15 years.

-------

Sony

Currently they have a minimal presence - their Sony Connect system is hardly used at all - but this will all change very quickly - they will become a strong player in the DRM'ed media market - for two reasons:

1 - The PS3 will (probably) be a big hit - there's a lot of PS2's out there - and a lot of people will upgrade to a PS3 without really thinking about it (assuming that the price of the device doesn't stay as ludicrously high as it looks like it's going to be at launch.)

2 - Sony is a media producer and distributor - they think of themselves as an ecosystem of their own - they see HD as a 'chain' - and all the parts of the chain will be Sony. (see this article with the CEO of Sony: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr...id=1001393147). Sony owns two film studios and several record companies - they've been keen on DRM far longer than anyone else (remember ATRAC and MagicGate on the MiniDisc in the mid-ninties.)

They will use their own DRM - they already are being difficult about their artists being on iTMS. They are a big player in the Media sector - and however friendly Steve Jobs *appears* to be on stage with the Sony head honcho when talking about HD cameras - there's going to be a fight here.


-----


So - excuse my rather unstructured rant - but as far as I see it - there are (at least) three big DRM players in the media market, and they're going to start clashing in the next couple of years. Guess who's going to pay for it - us, the consumers - since they are all pretty protective of their own systems, and aren't going to play nicely with each other (see the xBox 360/iPod integration stuff.)

Whatever happened to open markets?

I think we need an Open DRM system, not run by any company - that allows you to buy your media from any company, and play it on any device.

Oddly, at the moment MS is the closest to this right now - Apple and Sony aren't going to licence their DRM systems to many (or any) third parties - they want to 'own' the market.

When did Apple become one of the bad guys?

This is not good for consumers.

Of course, we should have thought of this years ago - and many of you did, I'm sure.

Right now the situation looks OK to us because FairPlay has such a strong, dominant position (like windows users who don't care that many devices don't work on windows) - but as the competition starts to hot up, things are going to get nasty for we users.

I think Apple has to start licensing FP, or people will start to resent the company that bought them 'pretty good DRM', and start turning to Sony/MS - and when they realise that their FP media won't play - they'll be pretty pissed off.

Thoughts?

[Randman]

Why should Apple? Apple's DRM is there for iPods. Apple sells iPods. That's the reason the iTMS exists and why Podcasts and TV shows are available on it. To sell iPods and hopefully a few computers along the way.

[Diggory Laycock]

Randman - because it's the consumer's music - Should Philips and Sony have been the only companies who were allowed to make devices that played the music you bought on CD?

Try this for a mental exercise:

Imagine it wasn't Apple that had brought out the iTMS/iPod - image it was MS - imagine they had executed them as well as Apple has, it was as big a success- and brought out a Mac client that was as well done as their own platform's version.

Would you *still* be saying - Yes - MS should not allow the music that I've bought from them to play on other devices other than devices sold by MS?


I promise you that (maybe not now) - but soon, you will find some situation where you want to access the media you paid for - but Apple hasn't thought about that situation - and it won't be in their financial interests to solve that situation.

Let's say on a plane - let's say that they decide to add USB ports to the screens in planes - it doesn't matter that it's a good idea, that the in-plane hardware can play AAC/MPEG-4/H.264 - if Apple hasn't personally engineered the solution - your media that you paid for will never play in that situation.

Networked Digital media is about to go massively mainstream - and Apple clearly cannot themselves ensure that your media will play in all possible scenarios.

[Diggory Laycock]

There's competition coming in the DRM market - if they all just close up and make their little islands of content - the consumer is going to be the one that gets screwed.

Do you really want not to be able to play your media on any of the next gen consoles?

[Big Mac]

Apple can't open FairPlay up in a broad way without giving the competition a major leg up on the iPod and iTMS. Giving FairPlay to competing music players would allow people to take advantage of iTMS without buying iPods; giving FairPlay to the other music services would allow people to use them with their iPods instead of the iTMS. Much of the success of the iPod is dependent on the popularity of the iTMS and vice versa. If Apple sees a threat to either part of the equation, it can use the offer of FairPlay licensing as leverage in negotiations in order to neutralize the competition. But Apple has precious little to gain from indiscriminate licensing of FairPlay at this point, while it's the market leader. Besides, M$'s Borg-like assimilation tactic has not exactly been successful in the digital media market, so why should Apple rush to replicate that failure?

[CaptainHaddock]

Apple needs to start licensing FairPlay, because there's a DRM war coming...

You make it sound like digital restrictions management is a feature we want more of. It's not, it's an anti-feature, designed to make a product less useful. The more it gets in your way, the more it's doing its job.

I'm glad no one else gets to use Fairplay. If they want their music to play on an iPod, they can release it in uncrippled MP3 or M4A formats and it'll work just fine.

Is it because the system is actually quite weak? i.e. security through obscurity.

All DRM is weak. You can't logically give someone the key to uncrypt and play media, and still keep it locked up. The best you can achieve is obscurity. Thankfully, Apple seems to realize this, and have made it very easy to bypass.

[ReggieX]

I don't think you know what you're talking about, frankly. You're confusing audio formats with the DRM that may or may not be attached to them.

How or why would someone "turn to MS or Sony" when those formats don't play on their iPod?

[Diggory Laycock]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

You make it sound like digital restrictions management is a feature we want more of. It's not, it's an anti-feature, designed to make a product less useful. The more it gets in your way, the more it's doing its job.

It's not 1999 any more.

In an ideal world we wouldn't have DRM - - but it's not an ideal world.

The content rights holders simply aren't going to sell unprotected content. Yes, you can trust many of your customers not to replicate the content - but 'free' content is too strong a draw for many.

That's one of the reasons why iTMS got off the ground - It would never have taken off it it provided unprotected content. Companies like http://www.bleep.com/ are the minority - they sell unprotected MP3s - but look at the labels attached - almost no one you'd recognise.

We've got DRM now -- that genie isn't going back into the bottle.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Much of the success of the iPod is dependent on the popularity of the iTMS and vice versa.

While the converse is true, I don't think much of the success of the iPod is dependent on the iTMS.

[Diggory Laycock]

Reggie - they might turn to Sony - because it won't play on their ipod - but it will play on their TV, PS3, Cell enabled TV/Hifi, Sony in-car headunit, SonyEricsson phone etc....

They might turn to MS because it will play on their xBox, PC, WMP DRM portable media device.

There's going to be a lot more than just iPods that play digital media in the next five years.

They're also going to be pissed off when they can't take their media between the systems - because the DRM ties it to one manufacturer. That's why I mentioned 'war' in the title - they all want to be the 'one ring to bind them all' - I'm not just whinging about Apple - I'm whinging about all of them - there needs to be an Open DRM system - so that people who choose to buy protected content can play it on any device (that supports the format it's in and supports this openDRM)

I'm not confusing DRM and Formats - I understand that WMP DRM is tied to WMP (yuk) - and I also understand that FP DRM is tied to AAC (an MPEG standard).

FairPlay ties you to one manufacturer - Apple. Believe it or not - the iPod product (although very popular now) may wane in the consumer's eyes. If it does and consumers move to WidgetCo's AmazingWidgetMachine , all the media the consumer's bought for the iPod becomes obsolete.

Just forget that we all think Apple are great - and they make great products - a closed system is bad for the market.

[Diggory Laycock]

BigMac - Thanks - I see your point - it's a business thing.

Surely Apple makes a least *some* money from sales on iTMS?

I'm not necessarily talking about complete licensing for everyone - e.g. not for other stores. I mean being allowed to play content from iTunes / iTMS on some other devices.

e.g. why stop people playing iTunes content on the PSP/xBox - most people will buy those devices for games - not to be a portable music device.

(I completely forgot about the ROKR!) They've already licensed FP to Moto - (ignore the failure of the ROKR - Moto make **** phones.) - why not licence it to MS (apart for the distrust) for the xBox360 - you'll need to plug your iPod into the xBox anyway - so no loss of hardware sales there.

The reason they might find widespread licensing more of a success than MS is because iTMS is already a success - there are loads of labels on it - and it appears that they are trying to get more video deals as we speak/type - whereas MS's attempt was a reactive attempt to claw-back respect/attention from iTMS.

Licensing FP out to other player devices (that aren't just portable music players - more like convergence devices - where media is a secondary function) means more sales for iTMS.

Or are you saying that the margins on iTMS sales are just too slim to support this?

[lavar78]

The Xbox 360 will be able to stream music straight from the iPod.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock

Surely Apple makes a least *some* money from sales on iTMS?

Compared to the money they make by selling iPods?

The iPod (and FairPlay DRM songs by extension) is compatible with stereos, Airport Express, and a whole slew of speaker systems. The iPod is so popular that people will find a way to support it.

[Diggory Laycock]

Originally Posted by lavar78

The Xbox 360 will be able to stream music straight from the iPod.

Only unprotected music.

[Tesseract]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock

Only unprotected music.

Wrong.
Unless 'unprotected music' means 'music you can hear'.

(But that's unless MPAA get their way and it becomes illegal to possess a non-crippled ADC...)

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock

The content rights holders simply aren't going to sell unprotected content. Yes, you can trust many of your customers not to replicate the content - but 'free' content is too strong a draw for many.

That's one of the reasons why iTMS got off the ground - It would never have taken off it it provided unprotected content. Companies like http://www.bleep.com/ are the minority - they sell unprotected MP3s - but look at the labels attached - almost no one you'd recognise.

No, you're missing something big here. The reasons why the iTMS works so well are the ability to search instantly, buy individual songs off albums, and sample music before buying it. It's valuable to be able to type "Weird Al Yankovic" in a search engine, get a link to "Dare To Be Stupid" with a sample of all the songs on the album, and with one click, download "One More Minute". You can do that on P2P, but not with the same ease of use. It is easy to compete with Free, you just need to be easier than free. nobody is going to build a free p2p front-end with the searching ability of iTunes.

Is the DRM an attractive feature of the iTMS? Nope, it's a nusiance at best, and one that is easily worked around. So easy, in fact, that the people with the inclination to buy songs off of iTunes and work around the DRM to share them with their friends have probably already done it, and the iTMS is still successful. I think if the iTMS provided unprotected major-label content, it would have preformed exactly the same way, except for the fact that songs that you buy off of iTunes could now be played on different players.

Looks a little different now, doesn't it? The iTMS DRM doesn't prevent a dedicated person from copying a song at all, it's kind of like a speed bump to them. But it does prevent the casual user from taking his iTMS songs to another player. The record companies may think the DRM is all about them, but yet again they're behind the curve. It's really Steve Jobs' way to get a vendor lock-in scenario that would get Microsoft hauled into court for monopoly abuse. But since it's the record companies "insisting on protected content", Steve can just shrug his shoulders, mutter something about not wanting to license FairPlay to kep the algorithm secret and protect the labels, and go on devouring the portable media player market....

[demograph68]

My solution: Don't buy music with DRM.

[Teronzhul]

Well, at least we finally have a use for the AVP tagline...

[Diggory Laycock]

Dork:

I wasn't saying that DRM was the reason that iTMS succeeded with customers - I'm saying DRM was a big reason why it was possible to launch it at all.

The labels would never have got on board without DRM.

Tesseract:
Well - if you re-rip protected music via an ADC (and get a generational loss of audio quality) - it's not protected any more - however, the xbox360 will not play protected AAC files from your iPod.

http://news.com.com/Xbox+360+and+iPo...3-5931847.html

[Eriamjh]

Apple is holding onto Fairplay because of the licensing fiasco with the Mac OS. They got burned.

Now, Apple is on top with the most market share for their product. They are not about to give it away and see that erode iPod market share, etc. Apple will hold onto it as long as possible, and likely eventually sign others up to it, but don't hold your breath.

[demograph68]

http://writersblocklive.com/?p=62

I agree with him.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Tesseract

Wrong.
Unless 'unprotected music' means 'music you can hear'.

(But that's unless MPAA get their way and it becomes illegal to possess a non-crippled ADC...)

No Microsoft just stated that XBOX-360 will have iPod compatability, but not for FairPlay-songs. (Can't be bothered to look it up myself).

[Diggory Laycock]

Never heard of NCC, but it seems that others are worried about interoperabillity.

http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=13107

[ShotgunEd]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock

Tesseract:
Well - if you re-rip protected music via an ADC (and get a generational loss of audio quality) - it's not protected any more - however, the xbox360 will not play protected AAC files from your iPod.

http://news.com.com/Xbox+360+and+iPo...3-5931847.html

Or burn your ITMS songs on CD and re-rip them?

[Diggory Laycock]

<over a year later>

Well, colour me surprised - It turns out Steve Jobs favours no DRM at all:

Apple - Thoughts on Music

Lets hope that the 'Big Four' pay attention (fat chance alas...)

[goMac]

Microsoft won't dump DRM. They've spent too much time playing up the subscription model, and the subscription model doesn't work without DRM.

I've never met anyone from Apple who likes DRM though, so Steve's essay doesn't surprise me.

[centerchannel68]

I don't do DRM, so I don't really care. I borrow music/movies from friends, the library, whatever. The more DRM gains, the less I'll use it.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock 

Is it because allowing others into the system would make it weaker? i.e. Steve Jobs can't control engineers from other companies as easily as he can his own - what happens when technical info on how the system works is leaked by an engineer from another company.

Is it because the system is actually quite weak? i.e. security through obscurity.

Steve himself -or someone writing in his name- wrote about this recently, claiming it was the latter. But truth be told, it's more likely to be the former.

In the same article, Steve challenged the industry to allow Apple to distribute songs without DRM. Apple claims that if the industry allowed this, they would start doing it immediately. I don't know if this is supposed to be some kind of bluff or something, but it will be interesting to see how it goes.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Randman 

Why should Apple? Apple's DRM is there for iPods. Apple sells iPods. That's the reason the iTMS exists and why Podcasts and TV shows are available on it. To sell iPods and hopefully a few computers along the way.

Why should any open standards exist then?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Steve himself -or someone writing in his name- wrote about this recently, claiming it was the latter. But truth be told, it's more likely to be the former.

In the same article, Steve challenged the industry to allow Apple to distribute songs without DRM. Apple claims that if the industry allowed this, they would start doing it immediately. I don't know if this is supposed to be some kind of bluff or something, but it will be interesting to see how it goes.

Yes - that is actually why Diggory pulled up this ANCIENT THREAD and linked to the exact same link AFTER OVER A YEAR HAD PASSED since the last post.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yes - that is actually why Diggory pulled up this ANCIENT THREAD and linked to the exact same link AFTER OVER A YEAR HAD PASSED since the last post.

Who cares? No harm has been done, that is the bottom line, and also the design of the rule in the first place...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock 

<over a year later>

Well, colour me surprised - It turns out Steve Jobs favours no DRM at all:

Why surprised ?

All the DRM sh!t exists because of the RIAA and MI mafia. Why did you think it was SJ's personal favorite ?

-t

[zerock]

upon reading this, my first reaction would be to stop downloading from iTunes. but if i start buying more cds then, the RIAA is winning, so i will keep buying from iTunes, but not as much as before, just to show off some support...

[macintologist]

Steve Jobs writes why Apple won't license Fairplay

The second alternative is for Apple to license its FairPlay DRM technology to current and future competitors with the goal of achieving interoperability between different company’s players and music stores. On the surface, this seems like a good idea since it might offer customers increased choice now and in the future. And Apple might benefit by charging a small licensing fee for its FairPlay DRM. However, when we look a bit deeper, problems begin to emerge. The most serious problem is that licensing a DRM involves disclosing some of its secrets to many people in many companies, and history tells us that inevitably these secrets will leak. The Internet has made such leaks far more damaging, since a single leak can be spread worldwide in less than a minute. Such leaks can rapidly result in software programs available as free downloads on the Internet which will disable the DRM protection so that formerly protected songs can be played on unauthorized players.

An equally serious problem is how to quickly repair the damage caused by such a leak. A successful repair will likely involve enhancing the music store software, the music jukebox software, and the software in the players with new secrets, then transferring this updated software into the tens (or hundreds) of millions of Macs, Windows PCs and players already in use. This must all be done quickly and in a very coordinated way. Such an undertaking is very difficult when just one company controls all of the pieces. It is near impossible if multiple companies control separate pieces of the puzzle, and all of them must quickly act in concert to repair the damage from a leak.

[Cadaver]

I happen to 100% agree with Steve Jobs on this (not because he is Steve Jobs, but because he's right).

All the EU counties clamoring about Apple's closed format should instead look at the European-controlled music industry itself. If the European music companies dropped DRM requirements (thus ending the battle between Apple's DRM and certain EU law), the US industry would follow suit.

And opening Apple's FairPlay isn't the answer; obviously Microsoft feels the same way, or they wouldn't have re-invented the wheel with its Zune DRM instead of the multi-licensed PlaysForSure.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who cares? No harm has been done, that is the bottom line, and also the design of the rule in the first place...

It is against the forum rules.

But then you have never had a problem with letting rules dictate how you act, so I am not surprised.

Originally Posted by From the General Rules thread/sticky

Don't resurrect ancient threads. If your search finds a relevant thread that doesn't answer your question, but that's more than about 6 months old, the information in it is probably partly outdated. Instead, post a new thread, but include a link to the old thread as a reference. This shows people that you did your homework.

[Diggory Laycock]

oops, sorry, didn't read the rules.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who cares? No harm has been done, that is the bottom line, and also the design of the rule in the first place...

I have no problem whatsoever in this case - perfectly legitimate revisiting.

The CAPS were aimed at a certain moderator who just replied to a post over a year old mentioning that there was new information...

[Eriamjh]

Jobs: "DRM is bad. We don't need it or want it."
Jobs: "We can't license Fairplay because someone might crack it."

If you don't want DRM, then why would you care if it is cracked? Wouldn't that be the perfect argument for getting rid of it (other than protecting movies)?

Apple should deliberately leak a crack to fairplay then use it is an argument to dump DRM at the iTunes Store.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Jobs: "DRM is bad. We don't need it or want it."
Jobs: "We can't license Fairplay because someone might crack it."

If you don't want DRM, then why would you care if it is cracked? Wouldn't that be the perfect argument for getting rid of it (other than protecting movies)?

Apple should deliberately leak a crack to fairplay then use it is an argument to dump DRM at the iTunes Store.

You didn't read the ****ing article.

All of Apple's distribution contracts hinge upon the fact that Apple has a very short time to GET ANY CRACKS FIXED, else the labels have the right to WITHDRAW ALL CONTENT FROM THE ITUNES STORE.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock 

... - because it's the consumer's music - Should Philips and Sony have been the only companies who were allowed to make devices that played the music you bought on CD?

Originally Posted by Diggory Laycock 

Do you really want not to be able to play your media on any of the next gen consoles?

Fundamental misunderstanding.

It is not the consumer's music.

Apple has a license to sell a license to the label's music in certaint specific ways with certain guaranteed protections.

Apple then sells that license to the user. That license allows 5 computers, so many disc burnings, the iPod, and a few other details.

The music never becomes the consumer's music, in this new world. It's not Apple's. It's not yours. It still belongs to the labels.

That's what Hollywood has always wanted, and tried for in various ways, whether through law (SSSCA / CBDTPA), through spyware (Sony music discs), or through iTunes FairPlay.

Even when you buy a disc, they insist that you haven't bought the music, just the right to listen to it. It's only with the advent of digital media that they can have the ability to withdraw that license when they feel you haven't complied with the terms for which they fondly wish.

[Doofy]

You want to buy music, go to a record store, buy a CD. You'll bypass the DRM, keep your local record store in business and have a nice physical copy of the music for your shelves.

It's that easy.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by demograph68 

My solution: Don't buy music with DRM.

You do that and the music industry will say "Aha! No one wants to buy music online!" when the truth is no one wants to buy music with DRM.

[exca1ibur]

If iTunes had no DRM they would have no labels to sell music at all. So, who is the blame? I don't get why some of these 'anal'ysts try to attack Steve on this one. Same with Window Media stores out there, and they don't even support iPods. So they are usually DOA at launch. The European companies are suing the wrong company. I'm sure THAT is the reason for the open letter, but I see the countries don't get it either as Italy has joined in the party. If you want DRM free music, I think you have to talk to the people that own the content, not the middle man.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You didn't read the ****ing article.

All of Apple's distribution contracts hinge upon the fact that Apple has a very short time to GET ANY CRACKS FIXED, else the labels have the right to WITHDRAW ALL CONTENT FROM THE ITUNES STORE.

But they could only get the cracks fixed within their own store, just like it is now... What would the difference be?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

If iTunes had no DRM they would have no labels to sell music at all. So, who is the blame? I don't get why some of these 'anal'ysts try to attack Steve on this one. Same with Window Media stores out there, and they don't even support iPods. So they are usually DOA at launch. The European companies are suing the wrong company. I'm sure THAT is the reason for the open letter, but I see the countries don't get it either as Italy has joined in the party. If you want DRM free music, I think you have to talk to the people that own the content, not the middle man.

It's Apple's product, period. It doesn't matter where the blame rests, Apple is selling products from *their* service, so it is therefore *their* responsibility to offer this service legally. As far as the law is concerned, these sorts of logistics are irrelevant.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's Apple's product, period. It doesn't matter where the blame rests, Apple is selling products from *their* service, so it is therefore *their* responsibility to offer this service legally. As far as the law is concerned, these sorts of logistics are irrelevant.

It does matter because Apple isn't the one that has to address the issue. They can't fix ANYTHING without the approval of the label. You go to the SOURCE when you are dealing with a problem not around it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

It does matter because Apple isn't the one that has to address the issue. They can't fix ANYTHING without the approval of the label. You go to the SOURCE when you are dealing with a problem not around it.

When your car breaks down and the problem is with a particular part, who gets sued, the car manufacturer for selling you the car, or the maker of this particular part?

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You do that and the music industry will say "Aha! No one wants to buy music online!" when the truth is no one wants to buy music at all.

Fixed. I haven't bought music since last summer, when I bought one CD. Before that.... probably august of 2003. I never buy music. I rent it from the library, borrow from friends, or download tons of free music online (legally). The RIAA barely sees any of my money, ever, and that's the way I like it.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Fixed. I haven't bought music since last summer, when I bought one CD. Before that.... probably august of 2003. I never buy music. I rent it from the library, borrow from friends, or download tons of free music online (legally). The RIAA barely sees any of my money, ever, and that's the way I like it.

Well, last time I checked, you're not everybody.